ORDER Devan Ramachandran, J.

Even though the petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 03.12.2025 on various grounds, the fact remains that, what he projects is that he has been incapacitated from even initiating civil action to reclaim his property based on his alleged title.

2. Smt.C.G.Preetha – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the observations of this Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment sought to be reviewed will certainly prejudice her client because, even if he is to now initiate action, it would be foreclosed for the reason that the property in question has been included in the ‘Asset Register’ of the Corporation. She argued that such inclusion itself is illegal, particularly when her client has given no permission or consent for it; and hence that he has been constrained to approach this Court through this petition.

3. Smt.C.G.Preetha further explained that the sole reason why her client withdrew the earlier litigation was because he was advised that Section 563 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (‘Act’ for short), would stand against him.

4. We have gone through the observations we made in the judgment and have little doubt that all which